It amazes me that the Marketeers think changing the title of the film will in any way disguise the fact that it's a movie about a Princess. That cover shot is so obviously chosen because it's an "action shot" and yet the first thing the little boy inside me said was "that's a movie about a girl". I could care less whether it's a princess movie or not, back in the day I'd go to see it because it was Disney and Glen Keane was involved and I knew they had made something special. Nowadays I'm sick of them second guessing everything, not being confident in their product, and basically underestimating the audiences intelligence. I'm hoping Tangled is good but not holding my breath.

One of the (many) concerns that Disney is now facing is content balance - Specifically, how much content to be released in a given timeframe.

Unfortunately, Disney held a strategy of "content overload" in the 90's and early 00's that have since negatively affected the brand. Disney animated films were no longer perceived as an "event" because there were just so many of them. If they weren't an event then people could just wait for them on DVD / Cable (which is exactly what they began to do).

I may be in the minority but I think that it is great that Disney has finally come to their senses concerning the "princess" genre. They are significantly overextended, realize it and are actively attempting to correct it. Unfortunately, they still need to deal with a lot of "princess" properties that were in the production pipeline when they made their course correction but soon there will be more gender-balanced properties that will not need the "controversy" of name changes or creative marketing.

Now if they could only fix Epcot and restore it to it's former glory... That might be asking for a bit too much...